Biblical Dilemmas: Solved

For over a year I've had a nagging complaint with the Bible. *Gasp*! Don't lay prostrate on the floor for me just yet. Inside the group of Christians we went to church with a year ago it was hinted that because the *Pastor* had so much Bible training and I didn't, I couldn't possibly trust myself to read the Bible and interpret it correctly (so little faith in the Holy Spirit, I realize!).

This distressed me greatly. I was angry at God. Why give us a book, call it His Word, treat it like a manual-for-living, say it's inerrant, and then say Sola scriptura. I didn't know how to deal with my anger and confusion, assuming that if I did ever actually talk to someone about my doubts in the Bible that I'd be labeled a heretic, or worse, in rebellion.

I tried to play with the word "inspired." Does it really mean God-breathed...in the *Greek*? And finding out that's just exactly what "inspired" means, what does God-breathed really mean? The only conclusion I could come up with was that I was stuck believing in a Book that had all the answers, was full of stories and instruction directly from the mouth of God, even though hardly anyone could completely agree on it's meaning. These are the things I had been taught. They're the truths that most of my fellow believer-friends continue to hold dear to.

I began to look into other people's ways of interpreting the Bible. I found that many people disagree with the traditional way women are viewed, and I realized that maintaining cultural integrity was actually very important. Take, for instance, this article on Household Codes. Mr. Kruse does an honorable job at revealing the way Greeks & Romans understood words, metaphors, and associations. I hope you read it (at least Greco-Roman Households, The “Head” metaphor, and The Household Code: Ephesians 5:18-6:9), but here is one of his conclusions regarding the structure of the family and what Paul had to say in regards to it:

For those of us living in 21st Century democracies with a range of options for how to govern our social institutions, it is hard to appreciate just how unalterable social structures must have seemed to Paul, at least until Christ returned. Social structures were not on Paul’s radar. What Paul was concerned about was how we live within the given structures. If people lived in genuine submission to each other, then the power inequities of the structures would be rendered meaningless.

As Molly said in regards to the article, " Whatever conclusion one comes to, this is certainly important background information."

Then I came across Michael Spencer's A Conversation in God's Kitchen. He introduces us to his model for understanding the Bible, interpreting the Bible, and applying the Bible- all based on what Literature Scholars recognize as "The Great Conversation." Viewing the Bible as a "great conversation" between writers helped me realize that (as Michael says, ) "it allows a variety of viewpoints on a single subject, such as the problem of evil. Job argues with Proverbs. It encourages us to hear all sides of the conversation as contributing something, and doesn’t say only one voice can be heard as right."

Here's a snippet from his section on "What is the Bible?"

Genesis isn’t twentieth century science. Leviticus is primitive, brutal and middle eastern. The Old Testament histories are not scholarly documentaries, but religious and tribal understandings of God and events. Proverbs comes from a mongrel wisdom tradition throughout the middle east. Song of Solomon is erotic poetry, and not much else. The prophets spoke to their own times, and not to our own. The scholars who help me understand these books as they are, are not enemies of truth, but friends. Call it criticism, paint it as hostile, but I want to know what the texts in front of me are saying!

[snip]

Most importantly, this model says the Bible presents a conversation that continues until God himself speaks a final Word. In other words, I do not expect this conversation to go on endlessly. It has a point. A conclusion. And in that belief, the great Biblical conversation differs from the Great Books conversation. There is not an endless spiral of philosophical and experiential speculation. There is, as Hebrews 1 says, a final Word: Jesus.

Under his next point, "How Can I Say the Bible is Inspired?" I cannot express to you the relief that washed over me when I read,

I am not shocked that Catholics and Lutherans find the words “This is my body” to mean something different than Baptists do. I am distraught that any of these parties would fail to see that we are all listening to the same texts, and disagreement isn’t because some of us are all that much smarter or better listeners. It’s because we listen to different parts of the conversation, in different ways, and we are allowed to do so.

In the very same little church I was a part of that tried to teach me I was incapable of really understanding what the scriptures were saying, I was taught that people who did not believe the same interpretation of the Bible that we did were not simply wrong, but "teaching [sic] by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming." Especially Catholics. I was taught that people like me who could see why believers had different views were being blown by the winds of false teaching. I was convinced for a while, but when I realized that I was coming to drastically different understandings from the Scriptures than the little church itself, I began to doubt everything they taught and search for a better Biblical understanding.

Now to the final admission I had planned to make: I do not believe in the inerrancy of scripture. *Gasp* again! It has taken me quite a while to get to this realization. I feel like a heretic just saying it! But I have come to believe that while scripture is inspired by God, it was not dictated by God as Joseph Smith claims about the Book of Mormon. Throughout the New Testament the writers say very human things, back-tracking in some places (see this post at Adventures in Mercy), clearly explaining others as something *they* do not permit (see also 1 Corinthians 7:12).


Again (and as a last thought) I'll refer to something very telling from InternetMonk:

[W]hat has inerrancy done for all those individuals and churches who embrace it? I’ll let BHT [Boar's Head Tavern] fellow Bill Mackinnon call the roll.

Those who hold to inerrancy usually qualify it by saying it only applies to the originals. Great. We don’t have them.

Inerrancy is supposed to help us achieve unanimity in doctrinal matters, yes? Has it?

Common doctrine of God? No. (There’s a guy at IM taking Michael to task about inerrancy who has doubts about the Trinity)

Common doctrine of Baptism? No.

Common doctrine of Communion? No.

Common doctrine of Church organization? No.

Common doctrine of Spiritual Gifts? No.

Common doctrine of Biblical interpretation? No.

Common doctrine of Salvation? No.

Common doctrine of Creation? No.

There are all kinds of people who hold to inerrancy who vigorously disagree on the issues above. And there are people who are on both sides of the inerrancy question who hold common agreement on the doctrines listed above. There are inerrantists who don’t know, read, or rely on the scriptures as much as some who don’t hold to inerrancy.

Do inerrant originals guarantee inerrant transcription? No

Do inerrant originals guarantee inerrant translation? No

Do inerrant originals guarantee inerrant interpretation? No

the God journey

Since Christmas, when I got my fantastic new little iPod, I've been listening to the God Journey, a fantastic new little podcast! Just Kidding: because the God Journey is neither new nor little.

I followed the link from Molly's blog (yes! she's back!), and have been hooked ever since. These guys, Wayne & Brad, have gotten me to a place where I understand God in a whole new way. Profound in their simplicity, I am turning from my God-as-concept way of life back into a God-as-friend way of living.

One of their "taglines" is "thinking outside the box of organized religion." Am I anti-institution now? No. But I am beginning to see that the way some churches lord their authority over people is not healthy, nor biblical. I'm beginning to understand that performance-based living, shame-infused to boot, was never God's intention. As in the stories of the Samaritan woman at the well, and with the woman who was about to be stoned, Jesus did not cast condemnation on them, or shame them into better behavior. That was not His way, and it certainly doesn't need to be ours.

A year ago God began to show me that "church" as I knew it was not the end all be all. "Church" is not a building. It isn't your choice of people that you meet with on Sundays. The Church is the Bride of Christ: "where two or three are gathered..." The unhealthy church we finally left tried to convince me that church *was* the Sunday morning event- and you *had* to be a part of that ("if you want to be a good Christian, you go to church on Sundays, and Wednesdays, and..." performance based, anyone?). They had verses to back it up (of course), and thinking that I couldn't possibly hear from God on my own because I didn't have years & years of Bible training, I believed them.

Thanks to Wayne and Brad, for spending their time podcasting once a week for almost three years. I have come to acknowledge that "church," or (as they say) the Sunday morning event, is not what God is all about. We are called to live relationally, and to me, that is the highest calling: love God and love our neighbors. Easier said than done if you're honest...

believers blacked out

Last Halloween we were caught off guard. We hadn't bought candy, we hadn't bought (new) dress-ups, and we hadn't thought of anywhere to go to celebrate. That's because we had chosen *not* to celebrate Halloween, as it's generally seen as a nod to evil, and evil we want no part in (see MacArthur's quote below).

About 6 o'clock, before it was even dark, our doorbell rang. I was surprised, as it doesn't ring very often, so I left my post at the stove wondering who wanted me to buy what. And boy was I surprised. It was kids! *Scary* looking kids. Teenagers, even. And they wanted me to give them candy. I sheepishly told them we didn't have any, and shut the door.

These first trick-or-treaters really scared my children. They didn't like scary looking people coming to our door, and the doorbell just kept ringing. My husband and I explained they were just dressed up for fun and wanted us to give them candy, but the children did not like it at all. We eventually turned out all the lights in the house, made a sign that said "trick-or-treating" in a "no" circle, and ate by candle light. Eventually they stopped coming. It was poorly planned and poorly executed, and I am not proud of it. I later read Tim Challies post titled Halloween Fast Approaches. He first quotes John MacArthur (a giant in the life of Challies) as having a typical view on the subject at hand:

“I think, it’s not a wise thing to have children go out trick or treating. I mean, I think it’s kind of dumb for Christian kids to dress up like ghosts and witches and weird things, and devil suits, and trouble-makers, and all that. I think, for example, you know, the whole thing of All Saints Day or All Hallows Eve has connotations, first of all of Roman Catholic tradition. It has connotations of demons and spirits. Plus the fact that little kids are exposed to screwballs as well as to cars, and all kinds of other things…What we do in our family is we have an alternative. Like you said, we do an alternative thing. We do something fun for the whole family. It varies from year to year, and our church has always done that, too, for the kids. Have parties and socials and things.”

After Tim states that whether or not you take part in Halloween festivities is completely a matter of conscience he goes on to make his compelling case:

My conviction is that it is a very poor witness to have the house of believers blacked out on Halloween. Halloween presents a unique opportunity to interact with neighbors, to meet their children and to prove that Christians are part of the community and not merely people who want only to interact with Christian friends or to only interact in our own way and on our own terms.

*snipping where he admits Halloween decorations do generally glorify evil*

Perhaps the greatest fallacy Christians believe about Halloween is that by refusing to participate in the day we are somehow taking a stand against Satan. And second to that, is that participation in the day is an endorsement of Satan and his evil holidays. The truth is that Halloween is not much different from any other day in this world where, at least for the time being, every day is Satan's day and a celebration of him and his power. A member of the discussion list wrote the following last year around this time: "Yeah... I've heard all of the 'pagan' reasons Christians should avoid Halloween. The question is whether we are actually participating in Samhain when we participate in Halloween? Who or what makes the 'Witch's League of Public Awareness' the definers of what Halloween is, either now or historically? Such a connection between Samhain and my daughter as a ladybug or my son as a Bengals Boy is highly dubious." And it is highly dubious at best.

I am guessing my neighbourhood is all-too-typical in that people typically arrive home from work and immediately drive their cars into the garage. More often than not they do not emerge again until the next morning when they leave for work once more. We are private, reclusive people who delight in our privacy. We rarely see our neighbors and rarely communicate with them. It would be a terrible breach of Canadian social etiquette for me to knock on a person's door and ask them for a small gift or even just to say "hello" to them. In the six years we have been living in this area, we have never once had a neighbor come to the door to ask for anything (except for this time). Yet on Halloween these barriers all come down. I have the opportunity to greet every person in the neighbourhood. I have the opportunity to introduce myself to the family who moved in just down the row a few weeks ago and to greet some other people I have not seen for weeks or months. At the same time, those people's children will come knocking on my door. We have two possible responses. We can turn the lights out and sit inside, seeking to shelter ourselves from the pagan influence of the little Harry Potters, Batmans and ballerinas, or we can greet them, gush over them, and make them feel welcome. We can prove ourselves to be the family who genuinely cares about our neighbours, or we can be the family who shows that we want to interact with them only on our terms. Most of our neighbors know of our faith and of our supposed concern for them. This is a chance to prove our love for them.

The same contributor to the email list concluded his defense of participating in Halloween with these words: "One night does not a neighbor make (and one night does not a pagan make), but Halloween is the one night of the year where the good neighborliness that flows from being in Christ is communicated and reinforced. We are citizens of another Kingdom where The Light is always on."

And on a light-er note, heres a picture I found of the two men I quoted today (thanks to the reformed evangelist):

(I think it's hilarious, and mean no malice by posting it here at all.)

the veil of small talk

I had this friend once who thought it was an infliction, placed upon her by her childhood, to dive deep in a conversation without regards to small talk. She scared people away, she said. She was too deep too soon, she said. And I agreed, small talk is necessary to break the ice.

But I've been thinking of her a lot as of late. I have acquired an avoidance of small talk. There are so many important things in life to discuss, and if I can't get to the heart of the matter...why are we talking?

As I shared this with a true confidant, expressing my frustration with myself much like my friend of old used to do with me, I was surprised to find that I'm not alone in this. She, too, feels like small talk is an unnecessary facade when fellowshipping with other believers. MInTheGap eloquently identifies it as such:

We live in a culture that seldom wears external veils, but we also live in a culture where we each wear a veil every single day. I’m talking about the facade that we all want others to see. We all want others to see our positive traits and not our negatives...

This is especially true in the church today. The one place that we should be free to acknowledge that we are sinners and that we all have common struggles is also the one place that we have to be the most perfect. Our kids can’t be bad, our hair cannot be messed up, we must have on our best clothes and makeup...

My confidant, being the insightful gal that she is, put it into simple terms as well. When it is understood that both participants in a conversation follow Christ (otherwise known as believers) is it not much better to encourage one another and build each other up? (1 Thessalonians 5:11)

When I was in elementary school, I must have been ten-ish, my sister was out of town and her car stopped working. We were broke, and didn't have the $200 it would take to get her home to safety. Our time to pray with our mother was at night, before bed, and she encouraged us all to pray for the money we needed to rescue our sister. She would come to each of our rooms and pray with us, so night after night we added a prayer for our sister's situation at the end of our regular prayers (i.e. my brother always said at the end of his prayer, "I love you, Jesus.")

One day we were dropped off at home from school, and each of us had an identical envelope in the mailbox (four in all: for me, two of my sisters, and my little brother). Inside were letters, written on red lined paper, each with a short message, signed by Jesus, with a verse at the bottom. And fifty dollars. In each one. And my brother's has a P.S.- I love you, too, David.

An awesome story, yes, but why do I bring it up as I rant about the lack of depth in conversations with people that I consider friends? The verse on my letter was the very same verse I quoted above. I didn't recognize it until I saw the address and thought, "Oh yeah! This is *my* verse." Ever since that letter from Jesus arrived I've wondered how 1 Thessalonians 5:11 pertained to me. The second part of it always threw me off ("...just as you are doing").

So I have a new mission. Obviously the Lord thinks I could be good at "encouraging one another and building each other up," so I will. When I encounter small talk, I'll small talk my way right into your heart with an encouraging word. With the help of the Holy Spirit, that is. Because I *know* I can't do it myself.

Elizabeth Elliot on Fashion

In response to the fluffiness of the last two posts about fashion I present to you what made it's way to my inbox this am:

The Right Clothes

Only certain costumes suit Christians. To be otherwise dressed is inappropriate.

"Put on the garments that suit God's chosen people, his own, his beloved: compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, patience" (Col 3:12 NEB).

"Put on the Lord Jesus Christ." (Rom 13:14 RSV)

"You have all put on Christ as a garment." (Gal 3:27 NEB)

"You must put on the new nature of God's creating." (Eph 4:24 NEB)

"You have discarded the old nature with its deeds and have put on the new nature." (Col 3:10 NEB)

"Put on love." (Col 3:14 RSV)

The clothes we wear are what people see. Only God can look on the heart. The outward signs are important. They reveal something of what is inside. If charity is there, it will become visible outwardly, but if you have no charitable feelings, you can still obey the command. Put it on as simply and consciously as you put on a coat. You choose it; you pick it up; you put it on. This is what you want to wear.

Do you want to dress like a Christian? Put on Christ. The act of honest obedience--the fruit of love for Christ--is your part. Making you Christlike through and through is his part.

________________________________________________________________

Click on the picture above to sign up for this (and other) devotionals to come to your inbox. I personally enjoy "Joy and Strength" even more than Elizabeth Elliot's. It is very bible centered, short, and almost always speaks to the character of the Christ follower.

I am Feminist**Hear Me Roar

This is why I believe in feminism in it's purest form:

Life is Hard

I hate to say that I never even read the classic novel The Color Purple by Alice Walker, but I know that it speaks to the injustice of the treatment of African Americans in the early 20th century. According to the American Library Association, it is number 18 on the 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-2000. (I thought the "Banned Books Week" was *Really Cool*!)

Here is a beautiful woman singing a beautiful, heartbreaking song from The Color Purple (the musical). Through all the trials we go through here on earth, and with so many of us going through them *right now*, this song really spoke to me.

07-02-28-03
Uploaded by greateggs

(HT to BooMama =)

Simple Church

I'm linking again to Rick's blog explainng a bit about Simple Church. The film connected to the post does a great job of allowing you to hear the thoughts of the shakers in the movement. When The Blind Beggar crashed and Rick lost all of his posts, I was saddened that I may never again hear this quote from the end of the video:

Every member of the body of Christ here will know they are living in their
destiny, and that not one person will go to their grave with their music still
in them, but they will sing their song, and reach their purpose God’s got for them
here…

me and the church

I've begun to want more out of church. I'm beginning to think that church being all about *me* and my other fellow believers is backwards. Maybe the main focus of the gathering shouldn't always be to sit quietly and be “fed the Word" when what we equally need to do is get out into the world and feed (literally) the would-be sheep. I'm tired of pretending and living like we are in a "culture war" and "they" are the enemy (thanks to Adventures in Mercy in this post that really helped me "get it"). I want to shout, "Wake up!" to "the Body" and tell the butt to stop acting like we are here simply to make it until we are rescued from this horrible, no-good, God-forsaken land. We are called to make disciples, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, help the poor, the widows and the orphans, and to live lives worthy of the call (Ephesians 4:1-3, Colossians 1:9-11) *here on earth*. Our so-called cultural enemies are the very people we have a responsibility to love and to care for.

I’m not referring simply to evangelism (because I always felt uncomfortable with the idea of passing out tracts). I am coming to realize that loving our neighbors as ourselves is much more intimate than a five minute Christian schpeal (am I the only one who uses this made up word?). There is a new (to me) way of doing church. It’s a new (to me) focus for the church, and the key term is missional.

One of my new habitual reads is The Blind Beggar, and he has compiled missional thought on a website completely devoted to it- Friend of Missional. The website explains what missional is in context of the way we normally “do church,” and it is very easy to read and understand. I strongly encourage you to take a look, and come back here and tell me your thoughts. It’s not too long and I regard it as exceedingly important.

I am honestly not trying to condemn our church structure as it stands, but I feel so complacent going to church, coming home, living life with my morally like-minded body and never doing much beyond baking brownies and Ooey Gooey for the neighbors.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son… let’s go out and touch the world, one person at a time.

The American Christian

UPDATE 2/27/2007:
I figured out YouTube! Here's the video that cracks me up and causes me to squint with familiarity at the same time (...isn't it ironic...)!



I can't figure out how to put YouTube up on my blog ('cause I really don't know what I'm doing- technically;), so you'll have to go visit the source rather than getting it straight from me! (I just discovered SmuloSpace, and have been reading it off and on all day [since I was wide awake and in need of some time-passing stimulation at 3 o'clock this morning].)

This video clip from John Smulo's blog is a great caricature of what American Christianity has become to so many people. It makes me rethink being a Christ-follower and how I express that to the "world" vs. how the "world" outside of Christianity sees most Christians.


"The world doesn't know what you are trying to say, but you'll keep trying anyway."

"Natalists"- a definition from the New York Times

I was surprised to see this editorial come from the New York Times- as liberal as it is. But this guy has hit the mark in many ways when it comes to famlies who choose to have more than 2.3 children.

Natalists are associated with red America, but they're not launching a jihad. The differences between them and people on the other side of the cultural or political divide are differences of degree, not kind. Like most Americans, but perhaps more anxiously, they try to shepherd their kids through supermarket checkouts lined with screaming Cosmo or Maxim cover lines. Like most Americans, but maybe more so, they suspect that we won't solve our social problems or see improvements in our schools as long as many kids are growing up in barely functioning families.

He has documented a trend here, and he is surprisingly accurate.

The Spirit Filled Believer

It is important that we know, at a time when Christians in America are being marginalized, that God is powerfully at work in the world. Lets not take our lukewarm circumstances here and project them upon the Kingdom of God. America does not equal Christendom (and it never did), nor are we any longer at the epicenter of what God is about. The future is Africa, South America and Asia. Exciting times!

This is a quote from The Blind Beggar regarding an international survey that the Pew Forum conducted "among a random sample of the population at large" in 10 different countries (the United States; Brazil, Chile and Guatemala in Latin America; Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa in Africa; and India, the Philippines and South Korea in Asia). From the survey:

In six of the 10 countries (all except the U.S., South Africa, the regions of India surveyed and South Korea), the surveys find that renewalists account for a majority of the overall Protestant population. Indeed, in five nations (Brazil, Chile, Guatemala, Kenya and the Philippines) more than two-thirds of Protestants are either pentecostal or charismatic. In Nigeria, renewalists account for six-in-ten Protestants.

What is it these Christ-followers are experiencing, living, breathing that we in America are missing out on? This is a huge group of Christians that believe in the power of the Holy Spirit *and live it*. They believe in that mysterious third part of the Trinity that most mainstream American churches ignore, and I'm a little suspicious of America's lack of interaction with It. What do you think?

Beauty is Fleeting

The ad says, "No wonder our perception of beauty is distorted." Isn't that the truth? As Americans the push is to look perfect, like the models and movie stars placed conveniently everywhere we look. Discontenment in our hearts (about our bodies, faces, homes, etc) breeds materialism; and let's face it, our nation capitalizes on each individuals desire for more. This is no profound idea I've just come up with, but I really appreciate Dove's attempt at revealing the truth in the midst of such a truth-denying culture. We are all beautiful- and the one part they are leaving out- because God made us fearfully and wonderfully. Here's a short ad I've just been introduced to.

Evolution


Hat Tip to "Charlie" from HomeDiscipling Dad
from Spunky's comments about her latest post.